www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Husar accepts Moscow Patriarchal visit

Dear friends,

I do believe that at present His Holiness, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus', is recovering from a serious illness.

At any rate, before considering going to Ukraine, I'm quite sure that the protocol would require an invitation to His Holiness to be extended by the Primate of the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev(Kyiv) and All Ukraine, first. The Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine, to which most Ukrainian Orthodox owe allegiance, in case you forget, is the *only* canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Worldwide Orthodoxy does *not* recognize any other "Orthodox" Church in Ukraine except for the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine-Moscow Patriarchate. If His Holiness goes to Ukraine it would be, first of all, to visit with his Orthodox concelebrants and faithful. Other reasons, such as a possible meeting with Cardinals Husar and Macharski, would be secondary, IMHO. Just as when Pope John Paul went to Ukraine: it was to meet first with his Roman and Greek Catholic constituency, other reasons secondary.

It is nice of Cardinal L. Husar, the Major Archbishop of L'viv, to invite Patriarch Alexy, but shouldn't Cardinal Macharski of L'viv, as Rome's other major representative in Ukraine, also participate in the invitation to show a united Catholic welcome? Then, after Metropolitan Vladimir invites the Patriarch, His Holiness may respond to a combined Roman/ Ukrainian-Greek Catholic invitation to meet. But I don't think it would be proper before that.

OrthodoxEast

We're back to the canonicity nonsense AGAIN. Yet again, canonical and official are used as synonyms, which they are most certainly not. Yet again, 'World Orthodoxy' is used as the yardstick of canonicity. At times we seem to go round and round in circles and never get anywhere!!!

There are still catacomb communities and semi-catacomb communities of True Orthodox believers in Ukraine. I suppose they are non-canonical too!

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear OrthodoxEast,

If the message of world Orthodoxy to Orthodox Ukrainians is that the only way they will ever be "canonical" is through submission to the Russian Orthodox Church, that survival of the Soviet era, then this will never be accepted by Orthodox Ukrainians.

It also speaks volumes about "world Orthodoxy" too.

And while the "Autonomous" UOC-MP has a majority of parishes, I understand that the UOC-KP has a majority of parishioners at present.

The UOC-MP is slipping in popularity and in members - one reason it is stepping up its "canonical smear" campaign against the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous movement.

If being uncanonical is the price to pay for one's ecclesial independence of Moscow, I think you will find many Orthodox Ukies ready to pay it.

However, I understand also that bishops of the UOC-MP are now rethinking their past positions with respect to the autocephalous movement and its values and are tending toward a more conciliar approach, together with the promotion of Ukrainian spirituality with an emphasis on Ukrainian culture.

Perhaps this is the greatest sign yet that they are losing ground in their "old backyard" Ukraine.

St Theophan the New Recluse of Poltava (glorified by ROCOR)and the chaplain to the Tsar was in favour of the Ukrainianization of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

May he pray for all of us, especially for the MP.

Alex

I really can't say much because I haven't as yet had the chance to travel to Ukraine, but I've heard and read a bit about changes that seem positive both for the Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek Catholics as well. It seems that the people want one "Ukrainian" Church that would be led by its own Patriarch and not by a Patriarch from a different country and culture that probably has good intentions as well, but the Ukrainians want a Patriarch that understands and respects its people, culture, history, spirituality and speaks the proper Ukrainian language as well, that's what the Ukies fought for and suffered and continue fighting and suffering for and this will never end until the day of a united Ukrainian church with its own Patriarch takes his seat in Kyiv.
Lauro

Dear Lauro,

Yes, I apologise.

I did not mean to formally impugn the good intentions of the MP toward the Ukrainian Church and people!

How uncharitable and unecumenical of me!

Alex

Alex,

This would be the "Sobornopravna" Church which has recently 'returned' to Ukraine. There should still be an article on RISU about this.

Dear OrthodoxEast,

There was talk quite a while back concerning a visit to Ukraine by Patriarch Alexy II, so I would assume all the official letters have been exchanged between the ROC and UOC-MP.

As for Patriarch Lubomyr's press release, it wasn't an 'invitation' but a statement of welcome and peace on behalf of the UGCC (as opposed to the calls from the ROC/UOC-MP to protest the Pope's visit to Ukraine).

FYI the Roman primate of Ukraine is Marian Cardinal Jaworski. He is free to welcome Patriarch Alexy II if he so chooses. Or he can ignore the visit - it's up to him. Keeping in mind the current state of relations between Moscow and Rome I assume he's seeking guidance from the Vatican on this issue. As Cardinal Jaworski and Patriarch Lubomyr head separate Churches (though still in communion with each other) they are in no way required to "sing from the same hymn sheet" on every issue.

I'm curious. When an Orthodx patriarch visits the US, do all primates of all the Orthodox Churches in the US issue a joint letter of welcome and show a "united Orthodox" front, or do they each 'do their own thing'?

Andrij

The Church you mention does NOT name Herself
"Autonomous". The official website of the UOC
describes her as "a self-governing part of the Patriarchate of Moscow".

Quote

Cardinal Macharski of L'viv, as Rome's other major representative in Ukraine

1. Cardinal F. MACHARSKI is Latin Archbishop Metropolitan of Cracow, Poland (current Pope's
successor on his previous see).
2. The current Latin Archbishop Metropolitan of L'viv, Ukraine is Cardinal M. JAWORSKI.
3. No one can be "Cardinal of L'viv". All the Cardinals are "Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church"
("Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales"). IMHO no Eastern Catholic hierarch should ever accept the cardinalate, especially if he's a head of a "sui iuris" Church.

Just a few corrections...

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Dear Subdeacon,

I always like it when you correct OTHER people!

Not that I am insecure, you know . . .

How is the weather in Polska?

Alex

1. Of course official name of the UOC does not contain the word "Autonomous", but at least
formally UOC is less dependent on Moscow than UGCC on Rome. For instance, UOC has right to choose and consecrate bishops, create/liquidate eparchies without Moscow's intervention. The UGCC must have Rome's assent or "consulation" for such acts.
2. I'd be VERY cautious with the statistics of faithful in Ukraine.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

I do know indeed.

Very fine, in spite of the calendar reality (END OF NOVEMBER!). We had snow on October (13th, just before my surgery), now we have a nice, warm Autumn...

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

PS. As you understand Polish, I invite you to read
the Polish Orthodox unofficial website (www.cerkiew.pl [cerkiew.pl]) with a discussion board.
PS.

Subdeacon Peter:

You surmised:

In that case, you allow only us, the Romans, to "govern" and "rule over" the Universal Church?

Now, the Ukies here, especially Alex, should temper their on-going campaign for Cardinal-Patriarch Husar to be the front-running papabili.

AmdG

Just the opposite: IMO the College of Cardinals
should have nothing to do with "governing" the
UNIVERSAL Church.

In fact, His Beatitude hardly is or can become a real papabile. From the other side, you should
remember that EVERY CATHOLIC can be elected Pope.

Sincerely,
subdeacon Peter

Great point, Piotr. We should remember that there were Greek and Syrian popes that were certainly not of the Roman liturgical tradition. They were elected by synodal vote in the early Church.

And you are right about the office of Cardinal. It should be reserved as an honorary title only. I don't even think they should be voting on the Pope at all, but the entire worldwide synod of bishops.

I like Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk's proposal at Vatican II, which at the time was seen as rather radical, that the entire Catholic Church return to the more ancient way of election, a standing synod of all of the bishops (regardless of status as Cardinal), one bishop, one vote for the primus inter pares, the Pope.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your replies and for the URL! I will definitely visit it, but my conversational Polish is weak, so I'll remain a lurker!

Yes, I'm confused by the statistics of Orthodox faithful I come across - Patriarch Filaret recently said that sociological studies show that there are twice as many faithful of the KP than of the UOC-MP. Do you think he's telling the truth?

Alex

Dear Diak and Peter,

Yes, the history of the Cardinals has been checkered to say the least!

There is the story of a Renaissance Pope riding into Rome when he meets a group of hunters on horseback who tell him that they are all . . .Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church!

He doesn't believe them, but when he gets back to the "office" he finds out that, yes indeed, they were Cardinals.

I doubt very much if the current situation in Rome would change to allow bishops to vote on their choice for Pope. The notion that any Catholic can become Pope is nice - like the farmer pulled away from his plough way back when to become Pope and set Rome aright. But today that really wouldn't happen.

I'd be happy with another Pope who isn't Italian!

However, my own view on this is that Peter is correct and betrays a truly and deeply Eastern theological viewpoint when he says that no Eastern bishop should be a Cardinal.

St Andrew Sheptytsky himself declined the offer in his lifetime.

Cardinals are entirely a Latin Church affair. In fact, choosing the Patriarch of the West is entirely a Latin Church affair - today.

The choice of Greeks and Syrians (and one Dalmatian although I understand he had no spots ) for Pope in the past occurred when there was little liturgical distinctiveness in the Church (Clementine Liturgy etc.) and doubtless the incoming "foreigners" adopted the Roman Liturgy.

This is shown in the assignment of St Theodore of Tarsus to Canterbury as its Metropolitan. A Greek, the then Pope had him adopt the Latin Rite and then ordered St Adrian of Canterbury, a Latin clergic, to his side to basically "watch over" him and ensure that the Latin Rite was observed in the various developing English usages.

The fact is that, as Peter the Subdeacon said, it should not matter one iota to us who is the Pope of Rome. The fact that it does seems to indicate a Latinized view on our part that somehow Rome is still the administrator for our Church - and that view should have long gone the way of the dinosaurs.

The Pope of Rome's election is the business of the Particular Latin Church that does not affect us, and should not. We should be the administrators of our own business without reference to Rome and we should become this more and more.

We only recognize the Pope of Rome in just ONE of his nine titles, that of Universal Pontiff. He has no further influence with us, liturgically or administratively.

And we need not have a centre in Rome or a Cathedral or anything. We do, however, and that's O.K. .

Alex